Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

    Quote from maryyugo

    2015 The Swedish scientists results including the so-called Lugano experiment yields a COP of 2-3 and a power out of around 2.5kW. Actually, Thomas Clarke analyzes these results, does the math and publishes a document showing that the most probable COP is 1.0 or less and that the Swedish scientists used a wrong number for the emissivity of the hot cat.


    Thomas Clarke concluded from the text of the report that the testers used the wrong emissivity and his calculated COP was a result of that.
    That assumes that we can literally follow the text in the report.
    Now if the testers made such a large mistake, could it then not be that they made an other mistake, being that they not did correctly write down what they did when measuring temperature with the Optris? And if that would be the case could it then not have been that they used the correct in band emissivities on the Optris after all ?
    And can the MFMP dogbone thermal verification test have been wrong ?
    Paradigmnoia recently reported : "The Lugano device is much more isothermal along the main tube length than the MFMP version, and has hotter caps with better heat distribution than the MFMP device". This means that the MFMP device possibly was not that equivalent to the Lugano device and we thus have to wonder if the conclusions of the MFMP where right.


    There are a lot of ways you can interpret information. But stay critical and do not take conclusions of others for granted !
    What the truth is I don't know.


    That does not make sense. You are saying that they reported incorrectly what they did, and also that coincidentally the two errors cancel out?


    Even by ECW standards that is not a good test!


    In any case the data from the paper is internally coherent. When correctly processed the COP for the two active temperatures varies by < 0.5%. Whereas they show 30% variation. That lack of variation is expected if the device is an electric heater, and random incorrect processing of the data (as the Swedes did) would lead to different values at the two temperatures. So this is a decent extra check that TC got it right, and that the Swede's data was correct.


    MFMP get a similar variation at different temperatures, because they assume the Optris sensor has a fixed emissivity / temperature relationship of exponent 3. (They broke the camera and so did not check). That is untrue, as playing with the Optris software demonstrates.

    Quote from ele

    That's quite ridiculous. Are you sure that the TC paper was correct ?

    In fact it was not. The TC paper and also his long posts were containing a swarm of errors that were masked by mathematical smoke and were only demonstrating that TC had a precise agenda. Not very scientific I would say,

    I am sure the TC paper was 98 to 99% correct. I tested it. The MFMP tested it. I implore others to test it.

    Making a COP of 3 to 4 using the Lugano methodology and an empty alumina tube is almost as easy as making an apple pie from scratch.

    Now just try heating up that pie 3 to 4 times faster with that excess heat.... and you will suddenly find a COpie of 1 instead of 3 to 4.

    Quote from LDM

    There are a lot of ways you can interpret information. But stay critical and do not take conclusions of others for granted !
    What the truth is I don't know.



    I applaud the sentiment but not how you use it. In what way does stay critical mean you reckon it even half-way plausible that Rossi has what he claims?

    Quote from LDM

    Paradigmnoia recently reported : "The Lugano device is much more isothermal along the main tube length than the MFMP version, and has hotter caps with better heat distribution than the MFMP device". This means that the MFMP device possibly was not that equivalent to the Lugano device and we thus have to wonder if the conclusions of the MFMP where right.


    The MFMP device was sufficient to test the Lugano results. The non-isothermalness (ugh) simply makes shortcuts a bad idea. The Lugano device can be modeled more simply for speed testing the math as two cylinders, but the many Optris measurement boxes like the Swedish Professors used is a far better method , and adjusts away errors caused by simple modeling.

    Just use a single alumina cylinder device with a coil inside the entire length and things are much easier to measure anyways. Or a square tile on a hot plate will do.

    Ha, ha, it's so funny, and fitting, that Rossi Brethren call mathematics (on which physics, engineering, science, economics, etc. are the core, and definitive proof) "mathematical smoke", but then Roscientology is a "religion", not science or engineering, so perhaps that's understandable. Rossi appears to have a tough time from the couple of videos posted, with basic multiplication, addition, subtraction and division--using a calculator.

    Quote from guest111

    Ha, ha, it's so funny, and fitting, that Rossi Brethren call mathematics (on which physics, engineering, science, economics, etc. are the core, and definitive proof) "mathematical smoke", but then Roscientology is a "religion", not science or engineering, so perhaps that's understandable. Rossi appears to have a tough time from the couple of videos posted, with basic multiplication, addition, subtraction and division--using a calculator.


    Rossi is clearly considers maths unnecessary for his work. He could never have made that mistake about average measurement of non-sinusoidal waveforms into a resistive load being OK for power if he'd ever done the math thing of integrating V^2(t)/R to obtain power into a resistive load form first principles. it is just one of many examples where an engineering law (RMS is 1/sqrt(2) of peak on sinusoids) is properly understood from the maths. So, doing the integration, if V is low duty cycle (spiky) the power integral comes up 1/ sqrt(duty cycle) higher than expected because of the squared average is smaller than the averaged square.


    I know most here reckon the RMS/average error from Rossi as clearly documented by Mats might be deliberate. But with Rossi you can't tell, he has such contempt for mathematical smoke that he possibly believes his own falsehoods.


    The Lugano IR error is a good deal more subtle and complex (and less widely understood) than the RMS error. So for Rossi to hit on this by accident or trial and error is pretty impressive. The alternative is that he has a pretty good understanding of this not trivial point of Physics. So I don't know. Unless the idea came from somone else?


    All Rossi's previous experimental errors have been basic stuff. Lugano, and also (from the evidence in the released paper) QuarkX, are quite a bit more complex. You've got to admire the inventiveness.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I applaud the sentiment but not how you use it. In what way does stay critical mean you reckon it even half-way plausible that Rossi has what he claims?


    I am not reckoning if Rossi has or has not what he claims.

    As you I am trying to form my opinion by (re)calculations. But that leads indeed only to an opinion and does not give me the truth.

    What I am saying is that if you base your calculations on documents written by others, you should keep an open mind that others can have made errors and that other explanations could be possible.

    And sometimes other explanations are indeed possible and can also be supported by calculations. But that makes it even more difficult to form your opinion.

    Quote from LDM

    I am not reckoning if Rossi has or has not what he claims.

    As you I am trying to form my opinion by (re)calculations. But that leads indeed only to an opinion and does not give me the truth.

    What I am saying is that if you base your calculations on documents written by others, you should keep an open mind that others can have made errors and that other explanations could be possible.

    And sometimes other explanations are indeed possible and can also be supported by calculations. But that makes it even more difficult to form your opinion.


    Right. That is a good general cautionary statement where you are not sure you understand the technical stuff. My point was that you can't apply it to your whole life - or you would reach no conclusion about anything. To take a topical example, you certainly would not be able to come to any view about whether AGW exists or not, since both sides are argued. Whereas this particular case has massive confirmatory evidence supporting one view only (Paradigmnoia's experiments, MFMP's experiments, coherence of calculations when done TC's way, IH's experiments, etc).


    I've noticed that those inclined to support Rossi take any of the very many strongly negative points relating to his tests and play this uncertainty card. Ele was doing it above. Adrian here does it continually. Tolerance is a great good, but tolerance of deceit or falsehood is not good.

    Quote from Paradigmnoia

    I made a COP of 2.3 with one side of a square alumina tile using the Lugano method.

    Try it.


    Para,


    You have not to convince me about that.

    I know that if you use broadband emissivities for setting up the Optris, that your measured temperatures will be too high.

    I think that everybody by now is convinced about that.

    The problem I have is that I don't know if the Lugano team indeed did use the "Lugano method" for measuring temperatures.

    Yes, it was written in that way in the report, but as stated in my comment to THH above, sometimes other explanations of what is written are possible.


    That said, I am admiring your persistence in trying to further investigate this matter. I myself wanted to do the same tests with the PI connect software, but could not find the time for it.

    I have one suggestion for you. You are using tools on the internet to calculate convected and radiated energy. For a first approach that is sufficient. However remember that for evaluation Lugano you have to include the rib area in your radiated energy calculations and the tools on the internet do as far as I know not do that. besides that you have for your radiated calculations to determine the view factor of the ribs, the factor which says how effective the area of the ribs is.


    Keep up your great work !

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I've noticed that those inclined to support Rossi take any of the very many strongly negative points relating to his tests and play this uncertainty card. Ele was doing it above. Adrian here does it continually. Tolerance is a great good, but tolerance of deceit or falsehood is not good.


    THH,


    Why are you always when others have sincere comments (at least from their prospective) on the tests, which you consider negative, think that those people are supporting Rossi and trying to deceit ?

    It really is beyond me

    The problem I have is that I don't know if the Lugano team indeed did use the "Lugano method" for measuring temperatures.

    Yes, it was written in that way in the report, but as stated in my comment to THH above, sometimes other explanations of what is written are possible.


    At the risk of flogging a dead horse that view in this case is not logical. The results they claim are exactly explained by the Lugano method and an electric heater. To within 0.5%. How can you explain such a correspondence if in fact they did something else? Quite a coincidence. Sherlock Holmes - both fictional and I suspect pseudonymic - does not like them!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    The problem I have is that I don't know if the Lugano team indeed did use the "Lugano method" for measuring temperatures.

    Yes, it was written in that way in the report, but as stated in my comment to THH above, sometimes other explanations of what is written are possible.


    At the risk of flogging a dead horse that view in this case is not logical. The results they claim are exactly explained by the Lugano method and an electric heater. To within 0.5%. How can you explain such a correspondence if in fact they did something else? Quite a coincidence. Sherlock Holmes - both fictional and I suspect pseudonymic - does not like them!


    The coincidence can indeed be that the other explanation gives the same result.

    For example if the Lugano testers did not make the emissivity error, bit instead reported the temperatures of the actual test wrongly in Kelvin instead of Celcius,, then the temperatures are again in line whit what the MFMP expected. Check it !

    However remember that for evaluation Lugano you have to include the rib area in your radiated energy calculations and the tools on the internet do as far as I know not do that. besides that you have for your radiated calculations to determine the view factor of the ribs, the factor which says how effective the area of the ribs is.


    It is easy to determine the rib view factor (as TC did). It is the case of a 90 degree angle between two flat surfaces which can be looked up on the internet in many places to get a number equal to that calculated from first principles by TC.


    I'm wondering how far your wish to stay uncertain extends. Do you feel there is any uncertainty in that part of the calculation? In any case it is irrelevant: the factor is only a small difference, and also is taken into account by the MFMP thermal analysis which used those same ridges.


    Thanks.

    Actually, doing some testing a long time ago, I found that a diameter of 2.3 cm instead of 2.0 cm for the main tube accomplishes almost exactly the same results as using the correct rib profile factor. The web calculator returns very nearly the same results for the Lugano measurement boxes using the values supplied in the report, so this confirms that part of the report math is good enough, and the extra 0.3 cm is a good fudge factor.


    In the mystery department, I re-calculated each measurement area for the Lugano Dummy using the Optris software, a known hot object, and figures supplied in the report (including each individual emissivity setting for each Lugano measurement area) to determine what the total combined radiant and convective power and the temperature of the Dummy would be if the emissivity were 0.95 instead of 0.69 - 0.71 (Main body) and 0.79 (Caps). The answer is 264.25 W at a typical main tube temperature of around 374 C . (This does not include the Rods.)

    The MFMP estimated 190.6 W input for the Dummy to reach 442.5 C using a thermal state regression method in a recent paper. I have to go over their paper again to see if the Rods were accounted for. Anyways, if it takes 264.25 W (no rods yet) to reach a carefully re-calculated 374 C, then to reach 442.5 C (Lugano main tube average) plus rods (~100W ?), then perhaps around 420 to 450 W is reasonable (guessing), and close to the Lugano Dummy input, but very far from the MFMP estimate.

    So why is the MFMP thermal state power estimate for the Dummy so far (much lower) from the (fairly) simple re-calculation using strictly emissivity changes?


    Edit: I think i see what MFMP did now. The 190.6 W is not an estimate for the whole device, it is a relative comparison value for comparable zone of temperature measurements only.

    Quote from bang99

    They paid for it, they own it.

    They can not be defined as a customer?

    We were talking about the question made to Rossi during the pretrial. The lawyer obviously asked if Rossi had clients other than IH ... since the dispute was between IH and Rossi it was obvious that IH was a client and if Rossi did not consider it, it was just because it was implied.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Business entities are not people, and the people at I.H. do not refer to themselves in the third person.

    Maybe they not referred to themselves in the third person but they are very accustomed to creating business entities to protect themselves. There would be nothing wrong with it, if it were not a practice aimed at the deception and if they did not forget to report to the SEC their habit ...

    Quote from Nigel Appleton

    It may indeed be that Signor Rossi demonstrates something this year.


    If so, it will be interesting to see whether or not it will be open to close observation and whether it will involve some sort of control run.

    I don't think the presentation of QuarkX will be done by a third-party (if this is what you mean for "close observation"). Rossi will present the new reactor to the public and, whenever possible, he will sell it. Users will told us whether it works or not.

    Quote from maryyugo

    The reason Darden dropped the countersuit was almost certainly that he could not predict the outcome of the trial, trials and juries being what they are. In highly technical topics and with the issue being narrowed mostly to a contract dispute, Darden just could not risk *$300 million* even if the chance of that sort of settlement (and it sticking on appeal) was comparatively small.

    Many people here say that Darden had overwhelming evidence against Rossi, but when we talk about the settlement, this apology often comes out: "with a jury you never know how it can end, so Darden has chosen the least risky way". The two things can not coexist: if Darden really had such obvious evidence, he had nothing to fear from the jury. If he was afraid of them, he was not sure of his own reasons.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.